THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

mukiialice64
Complaint
May 26, 2023

STATE OF MINNESOTA                                                  DISTRICT COURT THIRD

COUNTY OF RAMSEY                                                        JUDICIAL DISTRICT

  LA’MONT KNAZZE III,                                       Plaintiff, v.   NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC; NORTH END SELF STORAGE L.L.C; 1370 GOPHER STATE STORAGE; NOKEY’S 24 HOUR TOWING AND WRECKING SERVICE; AND LOWRELL ROYAL ANDERSON IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS TRUCKER, AGENT, OWNER, OPERATOR OF NOKEY’S 24 HOUR TOWING AND WRECKING SERVICE                                  Defendants.                                                                                   Court File No.: 62-CV-21-494   Judge: Laura Nelson   Case Type: Contract   Jury Trial Demanded       THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT                                                                   

Plaintiff, LA’MONT KNAZZE III (hereinafter referred to as “Knazze”),files this Third Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (the “Complaint”) against Defendants North End Self Storage MN LLC, North End Self Storage L.L.C., 1370 Gopher State Storage, and Karl Pigg. (Collectively “Defendants”) based on personal knowledge as to his own acts and on information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

  1.  
  2. Despite an aggressive storage facility acquisition investment wealth building strategy, (See Exhibits “A-16” and “A-17”), the initial owner North End has sold the business to, State Storage Saint Paul LLC and/or State Storage Midwest LLC, which is doing business as 1370 Gopher State Storage. Accordingly, 1370 Gopher State Storage is also liable for the debts and obligations of North End Storage.
  3. Plaintiff has dismissed his claims against Defendant SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP DBA STC FIVE LLC. This was done vide a spoilation letter to the said Defendant dated April 30, 2021, and said Defendant’s confirming correspondence on May 10, 2021.

THE PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff, La’Mont Knazze III, is an individual, residing at 7240 60th Ave N. #7, New Hope, MN 55428.
  2. On information and belief, Defendant North End Storage MN LLCis a Minnesota Foreign Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business at 1765 Village Center Circle, Suite 100, Las Vegas, NV 89134. This Defendant has a registered office at 202 N Cedar Avenue, Ste#1, Owatonna, MN 55060.
  3. On information and belief, Defendant North End Self Storage L.L.C is a Minnesota Foreign Limited Liability Company residing at 8430 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 100, Las Vegas, NV 89128.
  4. On information and belief, Defendant 1370 Gopher State Storage is a business registered in Oregon, of address 9450 SW Gemini DR Suite 85473 Beaverton, OR 97008-7105 US. Defendant 1370 Gopher Storage is a successor to the North End Storage Defendant’s company. Therefore, this Defendant is liable for the debts and obligations of the North End Storage Defendant.
  5. On information and belief, Defendant Nokey’s 24 Hour Towing and Wrecking Service is a business operating in Minnesota. Defendant’s business address is: on the North End Defendant’s storage facility site at 1370 Sylvan Street, St. Paul, MN 55117. T-Mobile phone no. Tel. (651) 747-5019.
  6. On information and belief, Defendant Lowrell Royal Anderson is a Driver, Agent, Owner, Operator of Nokey’s 24 Hour Towing and Wrecking Service. their address is. His address is 609 Dale St. N #2., St. Paul MN 55103, Tel. (651) 747-5019; (651) 368-3019 and (651) 528-4359.
  7. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaint to add additional Defendants pending the results of discovery efforts.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  • Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 543.19(b), The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants for the following reasons: (1) Defendants are present within or have minimum contacts within the State of Minnesota and district; (2) Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Minnesota and within this district; (3) Defendants have sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Minnesota; (4) Defendants regularly conduct business within the State of Minnesota and within this district, and Plaintiff’s cause of action arises directly from Defendants’ business contacts and other activities in the State of Minnesota and in this district; and (5) Defendants are incorporated in Minnesota and have purposely availed itself of the privileges and benefits of the laws of the State of Minnesota.
  • Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 484.01, the Court has general subject matter jurisdiction because the facts that form the basis of this action occurred, at least in substantial part, within the district.
  • Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 542.09, venue exists because substantial parts of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims stated herein occurred within this district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

  1. The storage unit is a garage with dual overhead doors, and the unit is numbered 114 on the west side and 138 on the east side.
  2. Plaintiff has paid thousands of dollars to Defendants and prior entities in possession of the storage facility, over a period of years in exchange for storing and protecting Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff is unaware of any breaches prior to North End’s and the current owners taking possession of the storage facility’s property and prior to Defendant North End cutting the locks on Plaintiff’s storage unit numbered 114 and 138, creating an unlawful bailment thereupon, installing this Defendant’s own large and distinctive red colored locks.
  3. Knazze’s leased garage storage unit was filled with household items, electronics, construction equipment and materials, including new windows, doors, gas boiler, water heater, hundreds of feet of hot, cold, and in-floor PEX tubing, tri-plex service line electrical wiring, 200 Amp service panel, wine coolers, chandeliers, lamps, high end plumbing fixtures, jacuzzi tubs, high-end Snap-on tool chests, air compressors, air tools, flooring nail guns, framing nail guns, high end plumbing with mechanical tools, air tools, commercial air compressor and peripherals, framing nail guns, sheets of marble and granite, residential HVAC equipment, including boilers, floor nail guns and numerous additional items.
  4. North End has also leased space to Knazze to park the Plaintiff’s owned fifty-three-foot commercial trailer in the Defendants’ storage facility for approximately five years.  Defendants assigned the space as number OS17 per the attached Invoice number 18370 dated November 16, 2020, which Defendants submitted to the Plaintiff, see Exhibit “A-10”.
  5. Knazze had moved out of a large house following a bout with cancer, moving the contents of the house into the Knazze’s fifty-three-foot trailer, stored in the space Knazze leased from North End. The  Plaintiff’s commercial trailer contained enough construction materials to finish a home, two sets of laundry appliances, two sets of kitchen appliances, couches, bedroom sets for seven bedrooms, construction, mechanical equipment, office equipment, tools, electrical supplies, flooring, and enumerable, irreplaceable personal items, even the Plaintiff’s spouse’s wedding dress and other items were stolen, and this list is by no means exhaustive, so the damage  and the sheer havoc that these Defendants have wreaked upon the Plaintiff are substantial. Two complete model kitchens purchased by the Plaintiff from The Honorable Senator Rudolph Ely “Rudy” Boschwitz, personally, from the Senator’s former Home Valu Store in Fridley, Minnesota.  The Plaintiff’s fifty-three-foot commercial trailer was packed from end to end, and floor to ceiling, very tightly, in such a manner as to minimize load shifting, and was previously insured in excess of $203,000 by State Farm Insurance Company.
  6. entice Knazze to lease space, North End continued to recommend its site as a secure facility, featuring controlled access via an electric powered gate, with high, barbed-wire fencing, nestled against a railroad corridor, which served as added security, since it further limited accessibility from the areas outside of the tall fencing. North End controlled access by issuing an electronic security gate code to each tenant, including Plaintiff. Additionally, North End deployed 24-hour surveillance by means of tape backed up video cameras, overseeing the controlled access points as well as the entire facility, having cameras placed strategically throughout the campus with unimpeded views of the entire storage facility. Please See Exhibit “K”. Also, North End bolstered the security of its site by informing Knazze that the management and staffing monitored its cameras around the clock, either on site or remotely.
  7. the fall of 2019, Great Lakes Storage, the then owner of the storage facility operators required Plaintiff to relocate Knazze’s fifty-three-foot commercial trailer from the location where the Manager directed Knazze to park it years earlier, and to do so at Knazze’s own expense. The Manager represented to Knazze that he would continue to be afforded easy access to Knazze’s trailer to both access its storage area and to move the trailer at will, in the event Knazze wished to move the trailer off of the site. The location where the Plaintiff’s commercial vehicle was parked is still visible on Google Earth and Google Maps. Please see Exhibit “L”.  Plaintiff’s commercial vehicle had previously been located on the southeasterly quadrant of North End’s campus. Please see Exhibit “M”.  The Storage Operator submitted a hand sketch to Knazze of the location they wished for Plaintiff to relocate his fifty-three-foot commercial trailer.  Please see Exhibit “N”.
  8. The storage facility Operator recommended that Knazze hire Lowrell Anderson of Nokey’s 24-Hour Towing to relocate his trailer if and when needed again. Knazze declined, explaining that he would re-hire Ray’s Towing, who delivered his commercial trailer to the location that they directed him to park it previously, where it had been parked for years prior, to again, relocate the trailer, on the site.  Later, the Manager directed Knazze to a different location on their property, to relocate his commercial trailer to, citing a conflict with the Cell Tower Owner, which, according to him, specified that the Plaintiff’s commercial trailer become relocated elsewhere (See Exhibit “N”), so Knazze hired a Driver from Rays Towing to move the vehicle to an open area on the far southeastern end of the campus.Please see Exhibits “O” and “P”. It is worth noting that Defendant had a statutory obligation to guarantee Plaintiff’s access to his property. In this regard the law states that a self-storage facility is real property “designed and used only for renting or leasing individual storage space in [a] facility” where the occupants have access to the facility only to store and remove their personal property. Minn.Stat. § 514.971, subd. 2(1) (2004). (Emphasis added).
  9. Knazze complied with the sudden request and hired Ray’s Towing to position the trailer on the southeastern portion of Defendant’s North End lot, in front of the properties secured rear gate, which the Storage Facility Operators secured by a locking system.  Please see Exhibit “M”that shows the location of the trailer, where it had been parked for years, and then later, Knazze complied with the request, after hiring Rays Towing to shift it to the southeastern portion of Defendants’ lot, in front of Defendant’s rear gate. The Manager was on site during the relocation, and personally directed the trailer to where he wanted it located. 
  10. North End failed to provide the access to Knazze as promised. Instead, this Defendant surrounded Knazze’s trailer by other vehicles, including other large commercial vehicles, which made full access to Knazze’s trailer completely impossible. Knazze’s trailer was also immobilized due to the way it was surrounded by the said vehicles. Please see Exhibit “Q”.  Knazze repeatedly requested that Defendants remove the vehicles to afford Plaintiff reasonable and necessary access to Plaintiff’s fifty-three-foot commercial trailer. However, Defendants never granted Plaintiff’s request. Defendants are liable for their actions and inactions which denied Plaintiff access to his trailer. The law states in this regard that a party may not release itself from liability for wanton and willful conduct.  Beehner v. Cragun Corp., 636 N.W.2d 821, 829 (Minn.App.2001). In that regard, willful conduct includes “a disregard for governing statutes and an indifference to their requirements, or a careless disregard of statutory requirements.”  In re Henry Youth Hockey Ass’n, 511 N.W.2d 452, 456 (Minn.App.1994). Defendants failed to grant Plaintiff access to his property contrary to Minnesota’s Lien Statute 514.972.  North End clearly demonstrated that this Defendant was in complete control of Knazze’s commercial vehicle, an unlawful bailment. It follows; Defendants are fully liable to Plaintiff for damages.
  11. In December 2019, North End Storage served a lien notice on Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff having paid all rents due, which rents were also paid on time. Please see Exhibit “A”. Still, this Defendants billed Plaintiff for several hundred dollars as an assessment for late fees and penalties, before relinquishing and acknowledging that the Plaintiff had fully paid all monthly fees on time and entering a zero for Plaintiff’s balance owed following numerous communications with both North End Agent Bryan Patrick Barz in Las Vegas and Defendants’ Manager, at that time, Karl Joseph Pigg.  Please see Exhibit “B” and Exhibit “C”.
  12. Mr. Pigg claimed that Knazze’s rental check was in a safe in the Defendants’ possession somewhere, and that the safe had been robbed. When Plaintiff reminded Mr. Pigg that Knazze’s check and communications had been submitted by certified mail, with a return receipt requested, and that the payment check had already been negotiated, Mr. Pigg, began to backtrack, blaming the North End Las Vegas office for the “mix-up”. However, Mr. Pigg said Knazze would have to await a resolution, by the Las Vegas office before his account could be completely cleared.
  13. Mr. Pigg stated to Plaintiff that Knazze “must have some valuable stuff in all that storage” because Knazze had been “paying big rents for a long time.” Mr. Pigg also asked Plaintiff whether he wished to keep the trailer or get rid of it, suggesting that the Plaintiff was “having a hard time keeping up with the rent”.  The Defendant’s Manager suggested that if the Plaintiff wants to move his trailer or get rid of it, then Nokey’s “got a big truck hauler, they could move it for you.”  Plaintiff responded that he had twice used Ray’s Towing, and that he had been satisfied with them and would use them again in the future, when needed, again reiterating his request that North End remove the vehicles that are obstructing the Knazze’s commercial vehicle, for access and so that he could easily relocate it when he so desired to do so. 
  14. Notwithstanding the fact that North End had earlier confirmed that the Plaintiff’s rents were fully paid, North End’s Manager cut off all of Plaintiff’s four locks from Knazze’s rented storage garage unit numbered 114 on the western sided bay door, and 138 on the eastern bay door, and inspected Knazze’s belongings, allegedly for a potential lien sale.Please see Exhibits “D through Exhibit G”.  North End, thereafter, installed one of their own distinctive, large red colored locks, of the type that they customarily install on units that allegedly fall behind on rental payments, on each side of Knazze’s storage unit. They refused to remove them from the Plaintiff’s storage unit, until the “lien was paid off,” although no lawful bailment had ever even existed.  Mr. Pigg told the Plaintiff that he had been ordered to cut the Plaintiff’s locks off by Mr. Barz and/or others at North End’s Las Vegas office, from whence he received his directives.  Knazze repeatedly insisted that the Defendant remove the lock that they had installed and complained to North End that they had no business cutting off his locks on the Plaintiff’s assigned units, in the first instance. Yet, North End refused to remove them.  Although Mr. Barz resolved the alleged accounting error, he stopped returning Plaintiff’s calls altogether, concerning the issue of removing the Plaintiff’s locks, directing Plaintiff to follow up with the “local Manager”, Mr. Pigg on that issue.  Mr. Pigg, in turn, stated that he had to “wait to hear from Vegas…so I can’t do anything for you, till they say I’m free to takem off”, with reference to the locks he had cut off of Knazze’s storage unit, and replaced with North End’s own red colored locks.
  15.  Mr. Knazze’s conversations with Mr. Pigg and Mr. Barz had taken place by phone. Upon meeting North End’s Mr. Pigg on site, in person, Mr. Pigg, looked at Knazze up and down, telling him, “when I talked to you on the phone, I thought you were going to be, uh taller, and uh, lighter.” This statement had clear racial overtones, an ode to Knazze’s distinctive appearance as a protected class member in violation of the Plaintiff’s Civil rights.  Upon information and belief, this Defendant may specifically have targeted Knazze for the burglary of Plaintiff’s property, after meeting the Plaintiff in person and noticing and commenting on his race.  Notably, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibit discrimination against persons based on their race.
  16. When Plaintiff asked Mr. Pigg what he meant, the Defendant’s Manager inexplicably went into a diatribe about Mr. Pigg’s father, whom he said works for Homeland Security, and that for this reason, people should not “mess with” Mr. Pigg, because he “could hurt them real bad”, apparently, with the aid of his father, and his father’s special position as a Homeland Security Agent. Upon information and belief, Mr. Pigg had a downgraded opinion of Plaintiff, upon meeting Knazze, in person and conveyed that he felt deceived by the sound of the Plaintiff’s voice over the phone.  
  17. When the Plaintiff again complained that Mr. Pigg had cut his locks off, Mr. Pigg responded by removing the red lock off the east side garage numbered 138, because, he had a replacement lock that he intended to give to the Plaintiff for Knazze’s use in lieu of reimbursing the Plaintiff for having cut his locks off, but he only had a single lock available. Knazze had purchased locks from North End during his initial rental period, and so he did not find this to be objectionable, at that time.
  18.  In response to Plaintiff’s question to Mr. Pigg as to what method Mr. Pigg used to remove Knazze’s locks, in the first place, since the Plaintiff believed that he had purchased an extraordinarily heavily armored variety of locks, with limited maneuverability, so that they appeared to have been nearly tamper proof in Knazze’s estimation, Mr. Pigg gleefully related to Knazze that “your locks don’t even take, like forty thirds to cut, they cut like butter, we use a grinder, and we just grind them off real quick, yeah, they come off real quick!” Much to Knazze’s surprise.  
  19. Mr. Pigg left the Plaintiff’s rented garage, stating that he was returning to North End’s Manager’s office (Please See Exhibit “R”) to get a replacement lock. Mr. Pigg returned and brought back with him a single, Chateau branded replacement lock for Plaintiff’s use, of the exact variety that the North End Defendant sales in their office, that Knazze had purchased previously from this Defendant. However, the lock lacked any packaging, and Mr. Pigg supplied the Plaintiff with only a single key. Please See “Exhibit “I”.  Plaintiff has retained the lock given him by North End’s Manager Mr. Pigg. Upon information and belief, Mr. Pigg had retained a second, matching key, and retained it with the specific intention of looting Plaintiff’s belongings, sometime after the replacement lock had been installed.  This became apparent, after the passage of some time, when, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Mr. Pigg had been replaced by a new Manager, and had acted on his intentions to pilfer Plaintiff’s belongings.
  20. has duly paid all rents and complied with the North End Defendant’s instant requests for rental increases. Knazze has paid the rents in full for each, successive month, for both the inside and outside storage rentals owed and payable to this Defendant, eliminating the possibility of a lawful bailment of Plaintiff’s property by North End. See the Exhibit “A-13”- the highlighted area of the receipt that Knazze received on May 1, 2020, which reads: “Unit #114-138 paid through 5/31/2020, Unit #0S17 paid through 5/31/2020 (“OS” mean outside storage). North End has confirmed and acknowledged that rents are paid in full by Plaintiff.
  21.  
  22. Plaintiff utter dismay, when he removed the lock that had been given to him by Mr. Pigg, and raised the bay door on the eastern garage numbered 138, Knazze immediately noticed that a new, unused large bay window, that used to sit directly in the middle of Knazze’s tightly packed, rented storage garage, on the eastern side (numbered 138) was now missing. Please see Exhibit “J”.The window is of such substantial size, and girth, featuring built-in, operating blinds, on each of its operating casement windows, and set in a display frame, that it would be virtually, impossible for one person to grapple with and maneuver it unassisted. Evidently, Mr. Pigg must have had assistance, in removing and absconding with this, among other windows, large and small, among many, many other items. The windows were included in a custom home plan, that Knazze intended to build and specified by dimension and type in the architectural drawings that had been submitted to the City for review.
  23.   In addition to the windows, many other items, including building equipment and new materials of all sort were now missing.  The material and equipment were purposed for Plaintiff’s use in building a new home. They include such things as new garbage disposals, lamps, chandeliers, doors, stone, tile, wood, doors, wine coolers, along with numerous other windows, building and finishing materials, granite counter tops, sinks, bathroom cabinets, fixtures, finishing materials, boilers, tools and supplies were now stolen. Knazze reported the thefts to the Defendant North End, after speaking with the St. Paul Police Department, and later after speaking with the department’s Sergeant Dave Strucker on his phone no. (651) 266-5959, which has also been provided to North End at both their St. Paul, Minnesota, and Las Vegas, Nevada offices.  Sergeant Strucker was assigned by the St. Paul Police Department to investigate the burglary of the Plaintiff’s rented storage garage combined units numbered 114 and 138. 
  24.  
  25. repeatedly asked the Defendant North End to move the vehicles surrounding his commercial trailer so he could take his trailer and all of the Plaintiff’s remaining belongings out of their storage facility, but the Defendant North End did not move the other vehicles that were boxing in Knazze’s fifty-three-foot trailer so Knazze couldn’t get the trailer moved out or properly access his property.
  26. May 16, 2020, Knazze visited the premises of North End to whom he had paid rent to park his trailer and from whom he’d rented a double storage garage. But he could not enter since North End had changed the entire keyless access entry system, including the previous metallic colored box and pad, (See Exhibit “A-2”) to a new yellow colored box with keyless entry pad, (See Exhibit “A-3”) and North End had not given Knazze the security code, thereby barring the Plaintiff’s access to his storage areas and containing his property.
  27. then went to the Defendant’s North End 1379 Rice St. office, whereupon, he met the mother of the Manager, Mr. Carroll, who was there.  Mr. Carrol’s mother was on premises on each occasion that Mr. Knazze visited North End’s property, giving the appearance that she resided there.  She was frequently accompanied by an unknown male companion, who remains unidentified.  Mr. Carrol’s mother phoned him, and she placed him on speaker phone. She explained that Mr. Knazze “is here to go onto the property but he can’t get in since them codes got changed”.  
  28. followed Mr. Carroll’s mother’s red PT Cruiser, with Wisconsin temporary plate into the part of North End’s facility where his storage was located, about two blocks east of this Defendant’s St. Paul office. Upon entry, Knazze noticed that Defendant North End still had their red lock on Knazze’s storage unit, and the fifty-three-foot commercial trailer now has ball peen hammer marks all over the aluminum sheathing near the area where Knazze’s lock used to be, but had been clearly beaten off. Plaintiff also noticed that Defendant North End also damaged the trailer door’s right side, by prying it up and trying to open it with some sort of device or devices, apparently, just prior to changing tactics and successfully breaching Knazze’s locking mechanisms on the commercial trailer.
  29. no rental agreement that permitted any of the Defendants to empty the Plaintiff’s storage, nor has the Plaintiff lapsed in payments to this Defendant. North End had not perfected any liens against any of Knazze’s storage units, or the Plaintiff’s fifty-three-foot commercial vehicle, so North End’s bailment and theft of Knazze’s property is unlawful.
  30. the burglaries at the Defendant’s North End facility resulted in the theft of the contents of Knazze’s storage garage, and the contents of the Plaintiff’s commercial trailer, as well as Knazze’s commercial trailer, itself. Knazze had locks in his vehicle when he entered North End’s facilities behind Mr. Carroll’s mother, since the intended objective of his visit was to try to get North End’s Manager,
  31. no rental agreement that permits the Defendant to breach and empty Plaintiff’s stored items, the Defendant’s actions are those of thieves, looters and burglars. The fact that these Defendant’s burglarized and pilfered Plaintiff’s belongings is abundantly clear, since they, themselves confirmed that they cut off Plaintiff’s locks and installed their own red colored locks on the occasions when they breached Plaintiff’s storage units, then barred Plaintiff’s coded access to prevent his discovery of the Defendant’s breakage and entry into Knazze’s commercial trailer.
  32.  
  33.  
  34. .  All Defendants are willfully negligent, and engaged in intentional acts, which also included their lack of cooperation with the local law enforcement officers.
  35. Defendant North End’s facilities remain in possession of Knazze’s vehicle, which he requested access to. This constitutes a denial of property that belongs to the Plaintiff, and an unlawful bailment.
  36. reported the above theft incidents, on several occasions, to the St. Paul Police Department. See attached Exhibits “A-4” and Exhibit “A-5”,one ofthe St. Paul Police Department Summary Incident Report. The North End Defendants did not cooperate with the police, and when Knazze mentioned that to Mr. Carroll’s mother, she said, ‘no Police Officer showed up here, and nobody called us, we don’t know nothin about nothin.’
  37. .  Plaintiff has timely paid all fees and is current to date. Please see attached Exhibits “A-6” through Exhibit “A-11”. Knazze was invoiced for and has paid North End for any and all rents demanded by this Defendant, all of the way through their February, 2021 invoice.
  38. not served any lien notices of any kind upon the Plaintiff, since this Defendant had withdrawn such a notice that it had served on Plaintiff in 2019, due to North End’s own contrived error (See Exhibit “A”). North End has breached their obligations and grossly trampled upon the rights of the Plaintiff by perpetrating the theft of Knazze’s property.
  39. inappropriately and unlawfully denied sharing the security code with Knazze to access the storage facility injury Knazze, resulting in his expensive loss of property.
  40. It has been clearly held that “It is not often that demand is required to sustain an action for unlawful detainer of goods. Where the defendant has the goods by the plaintiff’s leave and license, demand may be necessary to render the possession wrongful. ….” Lewis v. Masters, 8 Blackf. 244; 1846 Ind. LEXIS 143. In this case, though the Plaintiff made a demand to give him the new security code and to remove North End’s locks that they installed on his storage unit(s), as well as to remove vehicles surrounding his commercial trailer so that he’d have access to his personal property.  North End failed to honor the Plaintiff’s request, thus resulting in their unlawful detention and unlawful bailment of Knazze’s goods by the Defendant Storage Facility and the theft of Knazze’s property. This results in theft by deception and actual theft.
  41. have not only been paid in full but overpaid, to date, and no circumstances exist to create a lien interest or bailment of any kind in the Knazze’s personal property.
  42. On or about February 3, 2021, Plaintiff received a notice from the North End Defendant that effective January 29, 2021, the Defendant’s business would be under new ownership. Accordingly, the business would be owned by the Gopher Storage Defendant. The notice also included an excessive demand that payment be submitted to Gopher Storage before the end of the month. 
  43. Plaintiff had submitted payment in full of $325.00 to North End on February 1, 2021, before receiving North End’s notice. Minus any explanation, Gopher State has now demanded an additional payment from Plaintiff in the amount of $195.00.

COUNT I

BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Against North End and Gopher Storage Defendants)

  1. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations outlined in all preceding paragraphs, as though fully restated herein.
  2. Plaintiff entered into the contract with the North End Defendants named herein to use their facilities for storage services.
  3. Pursuant to the contract, these Defendants had agreed to keep the Plaintiff’s rented storage unit and commercial trailer safe and secured and to provide Plaintiff with unfettered access to his personal property.  
  4. Defendant North End has breached their contractual obligation by completely failing to maintain security and safety on their premises.  Even if these Defendants had not cut the Plaintiff’s locks off, and pilfered his belongings, the lapses in security and monitoring, in and of itself are the direct and proximate cause of the burglaries of the Plaintiff’s personal property. Defendant aggravated the damage inflicted upon the Plaintiff by pounding the doors of the Plaintiff’s commercial trailer, and bending the bottom of one of the trailer door that left gash in the door, at the time the Plaintiff discovered that it had in fact been breached and burglarized.
  5. Notably, Defendants are deliberately indifferent to by disabling security devices and cameras. They also failed to provide a guard or watch person, making it easier for Knazze’s belongings to become burglarized.
  6. Each Defendant’s actions and inaction resulted in Plaintiff’s dispossession of personal property stored in the garage unit he rented and Knazze’s commercial trailer.
  7. Defendants have demanded payments in excess of Plaintiffs obligations to them.
  8. North End failed to perform the most basic of duties towards Plaintiff, including, but not limited to protecting and securing Knazze’s belongings and coopering with law enforcement agencies when Plaintiff’s storage units were burglarized.
  9. North End betrayed Knazze by cooperating with the Wrecker Defendants to abscond with Knazze’s property.
  10. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s breach of contract and refusal to perform its duties owed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
  11. Each Defendant is jointly and severally liable for damages to the Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT II

BREACH OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

(Against all Defendants)

  1. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs, as though fully restated herein.
  2. Section 515A.1-113 of the Property and property Interests Statute imposes good faith by stating that:

“Every contract or duty governed by sections 515A.1-101 to 515A.4-117 imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.”

  1. Under Minnesota law, a party establishes bad faith “by demonstrating that the adverse party has an ulterior motive for its refusal to perform a contractual duty.” OmegaGenesis Corp. v. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research, 132 F. Supp. 3d 1119, 1127 (D. Minn. 2015). Bad faith is “not an honest mistake regarding one’s rights or duties.” Sterling Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Herzog, 575 N.W.2d 121, 125 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
  2. Defendant’s failure to fulfill its obligations was in bad faith because Defendant North End has extended its contracts with the Plaintiff, knowing that it would not perform by failing to maintain security features, withholding access codes from Plaintiff, and taking the egregious action of cutting Plaintiff’s locks off, as well as denying his access to Plaintiff’s commercial trailer and storage garage.  All these actions breached North End’s Agreement and resulted in unfair treatment of Plaintiff and a reckless disregard for protecting his interests. Defendant acted in bad faith by failing to provide Plaintiff with the access security code, cut Plaintiff’s locks off and breached each of his storage units and commercial trailer, actively blocked Plaintiff’s access to his commercial trailer, and failing to move vehicles, when requested by the Plaintiff.  As a result, Plaintiff has suffered a huge financial loss. Defendant’s conduct was not an “honest mistake” but rather a calculated and “crass” choice driven by the Defendant’s desire to harm the Plaintiff, by looting and pillaging his belongings, in a total disregard for protecting and securing the interests of the Plaintiff.  North End conspired with the Wrecker Defendants, exploiting their long-established criminal ambitions to abscond with Knazze’s property.
  3. The Defendant acted in bad faith by failing to provide a security code, locking the Plaintiff outside of the facility, forestalling the Plaintiff’s discovery of the Defendant’s misdeeds.
  4. Defendants also acted in bad faith by failing to move the vehicles around Plaintiff’s trailer when requested by Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered a huge financial loss.
  5. Defendant’s conduct was not an “honest mistake,” but it was rather a calculated and “crass” choice driven by Defendant’s desire to harm the Plaintiff. 

COUNT III

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

(Against All Defendants)

  1. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations outlined in all preceding paragraphs, as though fully restated herein.
  2. At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendants owed a legal duty to Plaintiff to not unfairly or unduly take advantage of Plaintiff or commit wrongful acts in order to unjustly enrich herself at Plaintiff’s expense or at the expense of Plaintiff’s property or financial interests.
  3. During the period mentioned in this compliant, Defendants unjustly enriched themself by wrongfully converting, taking, utilizing or managing the property and financial interests of Plaintiff.
  4. Such acts and omissions leading to the Defendants’ unjust enrichment were the actual and proximate cause of harm to Plaintiff.
  5. Defendants have received all the rental amounts that they had demanded from Plaintiff but North End has failed to perform their obligations to Knazze, and directly breached Plaintiff’s locked storage units, utilizing brute force techniques, to access and abscond with his personal property.

COUNT IV

CONVERSION

(Against all Defendants)

  1. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations outlined in all preceding paragraphs, as though fully restated herein.
  2. Defendants – without authorization – appropriated, and assumed and exercised dominion over, the personal property of Plaintiff, in hostility to and inconsistent with Plaintiff’s rights.
  3. Defendants converted and are in possession of property belonging to Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, valuable household items.
  4. Plaintiff demanded the return of their property, which Defendants have refused to do.
  5. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the tort of conversion.
  6. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered financial injury in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT V

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(Against all Defendants)

130.           Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations outlined in all preceding paragraphs, as though fully restated herein.

131.           The Defendants, their agents, contractors and/or employees denied access to Plaintiff’s property without justification.

132.           The Defendants’ acts and/or omissions were done intentionally and/or with gross indifference to the Plaintiff’s rights and constitute outrageous conduct.

133.           As a result of the actions of Defendants, the Plaintiff has experienced extreme emotional distress.

134.           As a result of the actions of Defendants, considering the character of threats, Plaintiff suffered mental anguish and personal humiliation.

135.           As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has been materially and substantially damaged. Furthermore, the actions of Defendants were made intentionally, maliciously, willfully and with the intent to injure the Plaintiff, or to benefit Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for punitive damages in an amount in accordance with proof at trial.

COUNT VI

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(Against all Defendants)

  1. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations outlined in all preceding paragraphs, as though fully restated herein.
  2. Defendants owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff in their actions and conduct towards him. It was foreseeable and probable that Plaintiff would suffer severe emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ conduct as described above. 
  3. Defendants were negligent by breaching the duty of care they owed Plaintiff when they denied access to Plaintiff’s property.
  4. Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent actions towards him.
  5. Defendants’ actions were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress.
  6. The actions alleged herein were done with malice, and oppression, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
  7. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, La’Mont Knazze III, respectfully asks this Court to award judgment against Defendants as follows:

1)                  Granting judgment to Plaintiff and against Defendants based upon the claims set forth above;

2)                  Granting Plaintiff temporary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants;

3)                  Order that the Defendants be divested of any interest in property rightfully owned or possessed by Plaintiff;

4)                  Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages against Defendants based upon the claims set forth above, all in amounts to be proven at trial;

5)                  Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages, exemplary damages, and any enhanced damages allowed by law or authorized by statute, rule, or regulation arising out of Defendants’ misconduct, statutory violations, torts, and breaches;

6)                  An award of pre-judgment interest, attorney fees, costs and post-judgment interest in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants; and

7)                  Such further and other legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and necessary under the circumstances.

 

Dated: May 11, 2021                                                  Respectfully submitted:

 
 

                                                                                      La ’Mont Knazze III, Pro Se

                                                                                      7240 60th Ave. N #7

                                                                                  New Hope, MN 55428

                                                                                      Phone: (952) 217-8004

                                                                                      Email: djrsettlesit@yahoo.com

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The undersigned acknowledges that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.211, subd. 2, to the parties against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted.

Dated: May 11, 2021                                                  Respectfully submitted:

 
 

                                                                                      La’Mont Knazze III, Pro Se

                                                                                      7240 60th Ave. N #7

                                                                                  New Hope, MN 55428

                                                                                      Phone: (952) 217-8004

                                                                                      Email: djrsettlesit@yahoo.com

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )